TE 44 Builder Condition Manual for components.pdf

ER

D

C/

CE

RL

S

R-

-7

Knowledge-Based Condition Assessment Reference Manual for Building Component- Sections For Use with BUILDER™ and BuilderRED™ (v. 3 series)

Co ns tr uc tio n

En gi ne er in g

R es ea rc h La bo ra to ry

Donald R. Uzarski, Michael N. Grussing, and Brenda B. Mehnert December 2018

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

The U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) solves the nation’s toughest engineering and environmental challenges. ERDC develops innovative solutions in civil and military engineering, geospatial sciences, water resources, and environmental sciences for the Army, the Department of Defense, civilian agencies, and our nation’s public good. Find out more at www.erdc.usace.army.mil.

To search for other technical reports published by ERDC, visit the ERDC online library at http://acwc.sdp.sirsi.net/client/default.

http://www.erdc.usace.army.mil/ http://acwc.sdp.sirsi.net/client/default

ERDC/CERL SR-18-7

December 2018

Knowledge-Based Condition Assessment Reference Manual for Building Component Sections For use with BUILDER™ and BuilderRED™ v.3 series

Donald R. Uzarski, Michael N. Grussing, and Brenda B. Mehnert Construction Engineering Research Laboratory U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center 2902 Newmark Drive Champaign, IL 61822

Final report

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

Prepared for Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations and Environment, Facilities Investment and Management 3400 Defense Pentagon Room 5C646 Washington, DC 20301-3400

Under P2 Project #468106, “Study for Sustainment Management System (SMS) Real Property Asset Inspection Applications”

ERDC/CERL SR-18-7 ii

Abstract

The BUILDER™ Sustainment Management System (SMS) is a life-cycle asset management software application developed by the Engineer Re-search and Development Center-Construction Engineering Research La-boratory. The Department of Defense (DoD) uses BUILDER SMS to conduct facility condition assessments, identify work requirements, and report on facility conditions. In this way, it provides a consistent baseline for condition assessment across all DoD services and locations. The BUILDER system generates a multi-year work plan with recommenda-tions for component-level repair/replacement activities that not only as-sists current year tactical-level facility planning, but it also aids long-range facility investment strategic planning.

To accurately and consistently measure facility conditions, a standardized inspection process is necessary. This manual describes the procedures for performing Condition Survey Inspections for building-related component infrastructure when using the BUILDER SMS. The resulting condition sur-veys, while they are not detailed engineering assessments or specialized in-spections, do satisfy the requirements necessary for routine building management activities including the long-range budgeting and the sus-tainment, restoration, and modernization (SRM) program planning needed to keep DoD facilities in good working order.

DISCLAIMER: The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising, publication, or promotional purposes. Ci-tation of trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the use of such commercial products.

All product names and trademarks cited are the property of their respective owners. The findings of this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless so designated by other authorized documents.

DESTROY THIS REPORT WHEN NO LONGER NEEDED. DO NOT RETURN IT TO THE ORIGINATOR.

ERDC/CERL SR-18-7 iii

Contents Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... ii

Figures and Tables ......................................................................................................................viii

Preface ....................................................................................................................................... ix

Unit Conversion Factors ............................................................................................................... xi

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

1.2 Objective

1.3 Approach

1.4 Scope

2 Overview

2.1 Introduction

2.2 Constructing the Life-Cycle Profile of a Building Component

2.3 Knowledge-based inspection types

2.3.1 Distress survey with distress quantities

2.3.2 Distress survey with density estimation

2.3.3 Direct condition ratings

2.3.4 Paint ratings

2.4 Pairing inspection types with inspection objectives

2.4.1 Knowledge-based inspection objectives

2.4.2 Suggested condition survey inspection type applications

2.5 Condition zones

2.5.1 Zone 1 – Preventive Maintenance Sustainment zone

2.5.2 Zone 2 - Corrective Maintenance Approach zone

2.5.3 Zone 3 – Corrective Work zone

2.5.4 Zone 4 – Missed Opportunity zone

2.5.5 Zone 5 – Dead zone

2.5.6 Exceptions

2.6 Knowledge-based inspection timing and frequency

2.6.1 Knowledge-based inspection scheduling concept

2.6.2 Scheduling criteria

2.6.3 User-defined parameters

2.7 Creating knowledge-based inspection plans

2.8 Preventive maintenance inspections and condition surveys

2.9 Inspecting through sampling

2.9.1 Representative sample creation and selection

2.9.2 Minimum representative sample quantities

2.9.3 Sampling suggestions

2.9.4 Nonrepresentative samples

2.9.5 Unusual condition situations

ERDC/CERL SR-18-7 iv

2.9.6 Sampling to quantify work needs

2.9.7 The importance of sample locations

3 Conducting a BUILDER SMS Inspection

3.1 Safety considerations

3.2 Inspection tools

3.3 BUILDER Remote Entry Database

3.4 Inspector qualifications

3.5 Pre-assessment tasks

3.6 Tasks during the assessment

3.6.1 Keeping track of what has been inspected

3.7 Post-Assessment tasks

3.7.1 Inspection dates of record

4 Distress Survey Procedures

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 Distress definitions

4.2 Beginning the distress survey

4.2.1 Selecting the component-section, distress survey option, sample location, and quantity 39

4.2.2 Subcomponent selection

4.3 Distress density vs. distress quantity

4.4 Recording distresses

4.4.1 Recording distresses and other data with BRED

4.4.2 Recording distress data without BRED

4.4.3 Recording distress severity

4.4.4 Recording distress data without sampling

4.4.5 Recording distress data with sampling

5 Direct Rating Procedures

5.1 Introduction

5.2 Direct rating definitions

5.2.1 Rating interpretation

5.2.2 Abbreviated rating approach

5.2.3 Two-step rating process

5.3 Conducting a direct condition rating inspection with BRED

5.3.1 Selecting the component-section, direct rating option, sample location, and quantity

5.3.2 Recording direct ratings

5.3.3 Copying a previous direct rating

6 Paint Rating Procedures

6.1 Introduction

6.1.1 Do all “coated” components receive a paint rating?

6.1.2 When is paint rated?

6.1.3 Paint or coating rating definitions

ERDC/CERL SR-18-7 v

6.2 Paint and coating rating procedures

6.2.1 Distress survey

6.2.2 Direct condition rating

Appendix A: Distress Survey Definitions General notes Distress summary listing General distresses: Animal/insect damaged General distresses: Blistered General distresses: Broken General distresses: Capability/capacity deficient General distresses: Clogged General distresses: Corroded General distresses: Cracked General distresses: Damaged General distresses: Deteriorated General distresses: Displaced General distresses: Efflorescence General distresses: Electrical ground inadequate or unintentional General distresses: Holes General distresses: Leaks General distresses: Loose General distresses: Missing General distresses: Moisture/debris contaminated General distresses: Noise/vibration excessive General distresses: Operationally impaired General distresses: Overheated General distresses: Patched General distresses: Rotten General distresses: Stained

Appendix B: Built-Up Roofing Distress Survey Definitions General notes Built-up roofing: Distress summary listing Built-up roofing: Base flashing Built-up roofing: Blisters Built-up roofing: Debris and vegetation Built-up roofing: Embedded edge metal Built-up roofing: Flashed penetrations Built-up roofing: Holes Built-up roofing: Improper equipment supports Built-up roofing: Interior drains and roof-level scuppers Built-up roofing: Metal cap flashing Built-up roofing: Patching Built-up roofing: Pitch pans

ERDC/CERL SR-18-7 vi

Built-up roofing: Ponding Built-up roofing: Ridges Built-Up Roofing: Slippage Built-up roofing: Splits Built-up roofing: Surface deterioration

Appendix C: Single Ply Roofing Distress Survey Definitions General notes Single ply (SP) roofing distress summary listing Single-ply roofing: Base flashing-coated metal Single-ply roofing: Base flashing-membrane material Single-ply roofing: Debris and vegetation Single-ply roofing: Embedded edge metal Single-ply roofing: Flashed penetrations Single-ply roofing: Holes, cuts, and abrasions Single-ply roofing: Improper equipment supports Single-ply roofing: Interior drains and roof level scuppers Single-ply roofing: Membrane deterioration Single-ply roofing: Defective seams Single-ply roofing: Membrane support deficiencies Single-ply roofing: Metal cap flashing Single-ply roofing: Patching Single-ply roofing: Pitch pans Single-ply roofing: Ponding Single-ply roofing: Ridges Single-ply roofing: Splits Single-ply roofing: Surface coating deterioration Single-ply roofing: System securement deficiencies

Appendix D: Shingle Roofing (SR) Distress Survey Definitions General notes Distress summary listing Shingle roofing: Debris and vegetation Shingle roofing: Age deterioration Shingle roofing: Edge metal Shingle roofing: Exposed fasteners Shingle roofing: Flashed penetrations Shingle roofing: Holes, splits, missing shingles Shingle roofing: Improper equipment supports Shingle roofing: Interior gutters Shingle roofing: Lumps, ridges, sags Shingle roofing: Metal apron flashing Shingle roofing: Metal cap flashing Shingle roofing: Patching Shingle roofing: Pitch pans

ERDC/CERL SR-18-7 vii

Shingle roofing: Ridge and hip shingles Shingle roofing: Ridge or hip vents Shingle roofing: Stains, rust, fungus, mildew Shingle roofing: Step flashing Shingle roofing: Unsealed or unlocked tab Shingle roofing: Valley flashing

Appendix E: Direct Condition Rating Definitions

Appendix F: Paint Rating Definitions

References

Glossary

Report Documentation Page

ERDC/CERL SR-18-7 viii

Figures and Tables

Figures

Figure 1. Condition index hierarchy Figure 2. Component-section life-cycle condition curve Figure 3. Component-section life-cycle condition curve after maintenance Figure 4 General sustainment/restoration needs based on condition Figure 5. Suggested condition survey inspection types for specific condition ranges (zones) Figure 6. Screenshot of BRED desktop, illustrating the component/sample location selection tree Figure 7. Example inspection summary Figure 8. Adding an inspection to a BRED file Figure 9. BRED distress survey screen (no sampling) Figure 10. BRED distress survey screen (with sampling) Figure 11. Completed distress survey for a subcomponent Figure 12. Distress survey copy with Component-Section sample locations in yellow Figure 13. Direct rating thought process Figure 14. BRED direct rating screen (no sampling) Figure 15. BRED direct rating screen (with sampling) Figure 16. Direct rating copy component-section sample locations shown in yellow Figure 17. Distress survey screen when component-section is painted/coated (no sampling) Figure 18. Direct rating screen when component-section is painted or coated (with sampling)

Tables

Table 1. Condition survey inspection matrix by objective Table 2. Direct condition rating definitions Table 3. Direct condition rating definitions, abbreviated table Table 4. Paint/coating rating criteria

ERDC/CERL SR-18-7 ix

Preface

This work was conducted for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of De-fense for Energy, Installations and Environment, Facilities Investment and Management (OASD EI&E-FIM) under P2 Project #468106, “Study for Sustainment Management System (SMS) Real Property Asset Inspection Applications.” The technical monitor was Robert Lange, OASD (EI&E

FIM).

The work was performed by the Engineering Processes Branch of the Fa-cilities Division (CEERD-CFN) at the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (ERDC-CERL). At the time of publication, Charles G. Schroeder was Chief, CEERD-CFN; Donald K. Hicks was Chief, CEERD-CF; and Kurt Kinnevan, CEERD-CZT, was the associated technical director. The Deputy Director of ERDC-CERL was Dr. Kirankumar Topudurti, and the Director was Dr.

Lance D. Hansen.

Original funding for the development of BUILDER SMS Condition Survey Methodology was provided in part by the U.S. Navy Northern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) and Assistant Chief of Engineers, Office of the Chief of Engineers (OCE). Support also was pro-vided by Office of the Secretary of Defense, U.S. Army Office of Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management (OACSIM), and Air Force Civil Engineering Center (AFCEC).

In addition to the authors, CERL researchers who have contributed to the BUILDER assessment methodology include: Lance Marrano, Dave Bailey, Sam Hunter, Steve Sweeney, Doug Ellsworth, Don Kermath, Mike McIner-ney, Orange Marshall, Richard Harris, Bruce Rives, Buddy Bartels, Mat-thew Walters, Bil Hawkins, Sam Vance, Clint Wilson, and Jackie Mathis.

CERL research assistants for this effort include: Laurence Burley, John Borland, Makesha Bradford, Robert Butler, Na'ilah Kituku, Heather Law-son, Ryan Smith, Jason Schneider, Nicholas Byrnes, Virgean Jenkens, Ste-ven Kibbler, Elizabeth Rutherford, Philip Weightman, Charles Wittleder, James Field, Richard Drodz, Teresa Pin, William Murphy, and Richard Humphries.

External contributors include the following: Don Brotherson, consulting architect; Audrey Fisher, Pertan Consulting; David Wickersheimer and Dr.

ERDC/CERL SR-18-7 x

Dan Abrams, University of Illinois; John Myers, Georgia Institute of Tech-nology College of Architecture; Rochelle Jaffe, Construction Technology Laboratory; Dr. John Mathys, University of Texas; Jake Ribar, The Ma-sonry Institute; Harold Juhola, Ron Rosendahl, and Will Ginkel, U.S. Navy Public Works Center, Great Lakes; and Richard Caldwell, U.S. Navy Northern Division, NAVFAC.

Finally, a special thanks to all members of the SMS governance configura-tion support panel, and the BUILDER working committee for feedback and guidance towards continuous improvement of the BUILDER SMS as-sessment process.

The Commander of ERDC was COL Ivan P. Beckman, and the Director was Dr. David W. Pittman.

ERDC/CERL SR-18-7 xi

Unit Conversion Factors

Multiply By To Obtain feet 0.3048 meters inches 0.0254 meters square feet 0.09290304 square meters

ERDC/CERL SR-18-7 xii

[Intentionally blank.]

ERDC/CERL SR-18-7 1

1 Introduction

The BUILDER™ Sustainment Management System (SMS) is a web-based software application developed by the Engineer Research and Develop-ment Center-Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (ERDC- CERL) to help building technicians, facility managers, and decision mak-ers decide when, where, and how to best maintain and repair building fa-cilities. BUILDER employs a condition-based approach to facility management, meaning that work activities for buildings are recommended based on the actual observed or expected condition state of the assets, in-stead of discrete deficiencies or age-based models. Central to the condi-tion-based approach is a Condition Index (CI) metric, which measures the accumulated damage and deterioration of a building, system, or compo-nent on a 0–100 scale. In BUILDER, the CI is ultimately based on the ob-servations from a standardized inspection process. In order to ensure consistency and repeatability, inspection guidelines have been established.

This report contains the procedures, best practices, and condition-based inspection considerations to be used when conducting a BUILDER condi-tion assessment.

1.1 Background

The Department of Defense (DoD) and many other federal agencies use BUILDER SMS to conduct facility condition assessments, identify work re-quirements, and report on the condition of their facilities. The primary reason for its use is to provide a consistent baseline for condition assess-ment across all facilities and locations in an organization’s real property portfolio. The SMS methodology is a structured process for collecting, syn-thesizing, and organizing information about civil infrastructure and facility assets to support decisions pertaining to their sustainment over their life cycle. For each building in a real property portfolio, BUILDER supports the creation and management of a component-level asset register, which breaks down the building into its primary elements of constructed and in-stalled assemblies. Each component element is categorized using a stand-ardized classification system which organizes the wide array of components in a building into major systems, subsystems, and other clas-ses based on similar behaviors.

ERDC/CERL SR-18-7 2

The current observed condition of each component is then assessed by a trained inspector using a structured assessment methodology which iden-tifies any adverse effects causing condition loss and results in a CI metric that measures each component’s condition loss. The goal is to consistently and objectively translate defects and distress mechanisms observed during the inspection into a quantitative CI score, which can be tracked over the life cycle of each component.

The BUILDER system uses this information to help communicate the con-dition of the components, systems, and buildings in a large portfolio of real property facilities, as well as to forecast changes in that condition over time. The BUILDER system generates a multi-year work plan with recom-mendations for component-level repair/replacement looking several years into the future; the work plan not only assists current year tactical-level fa-cility planning, but also it aids long-range facility investment strategic planning. In addition, the system can evaluate a wide range of scenarios by using different condition standards, organizational priorities, and budget-ary levels; those evaluations can help decision makers understand the con-sequence of different facility-related policies.

1.2 Objective

To accurately and consistently measure condition, a standardized inspec-tion process is necessary. This manual describes the procedures for per-forming Condition Survey Inspections for building-related component infrastructure using the BUILDER SMS. By employing these procedures, organizations should expect consistent and repeatable CI values reflective of the current physical condition of the components of their building facili-ties.

1.3 Approach

The concept of condition is not easily quantifiable in the same way that ex-plicit physical properties such as length, area, and volume are measured.

In order to measure condition, the quantitative CI scale is broken into nu-merical ranges, with each range defined by qualitative descriptors that re-late to levels of accumulated condition loss. The science and considerable research in the CI approach is in creating the link from the physical obser-vations that can be made during an inspection process to this condition scale.

ERDC/CERL SR-18-7 3

BUILDER uses two types of observations when assessing the condition of a building component. The first type of observation is a direct condition rating, which relates the general observed condition to the closest de-scriptor on the CI scale. The other type of observation is called a distress, which is a mode of deterioration that adversely affects condition and can indicate potential failure modes for an asset. Each distress has a specific definition and visual cues that must exist. In addition, each distress has one of more levels of severity, which indicates how it affects an assets op-erational, mission, and life safety capabilities.

To support the consistent and repeatable assessment of condition, the di-rect condition rating guidelines and distresses need to be defined as pre-cisely as possible. Those detailed guidelines and definitions are provided in this report, thus allowing a trained building technician who is using these procedures to accurately observe and record the conditions present when the technician is inspecting a component.

1.4 Scope

These condition surveys are not detailed engineering assessments or spe-cialized inspections, but they do satisfy the requirements necessary for routine building management activities including long-range budgeting and sustainment, restoration, and modernization (SRM) planning. This building assessment process provides an objective and generalized frame-work to help identify problem areas that will require more investigation through details or specialized assessments. There may be times when de-tailed engineering assessments may be required to diagnose specific prob-lems.

ERDC/CERL SR-18-7 4

2 Overview

2.1 Introduction

Facility Condition Assessment (FCA) is one of the primary processes of a facility life-cycle asset management program. The FCA process results in a better understanding of the physical condition and readiness of an organi-zation’s facilities, along with the reliability of their systems and compo-nents. It also helps to identify candidates for facility SRM repair projects, a capability which represents a critical shift toward a proactive versus reac-tive facility management strategy. Instead of keeping facilities operational by relying primarily on corrective repairs (after a system or component has failed due to significant loss of function), the FCA process focuses on con-dition-based repairs which can be planned prior to failure. A condition-based approach can result in higher performing facilities at lower life-cycle costs.

This manual describes the procedures for performing FCA inspections for building-related components by using the SMS methodology. The SMS as-sessment process provides an objective and generalized framework to bet-ter identify problem areas that will require a more thorough investigation to diagnose specific problems through detailed or specialized assessments.

In the SMS, a Condition Survey Inspection is performed against the indi-vidual components that make up a building. When compared to a system-level or building-level assessment, the component-level assessment pro-vides more fidelity of condition information and links problems that are identified to the specific building elements where those problems exist.

This better supports a condition-based building repair strategy. It also means that an inventory of building components is necessary prior to per-forming an FCA. This information about the components that make up a building is called the BUILDER inventory. BUILDER software has a vast library of predefined component types that an assessor will select from when creating this inventory, and the inventory collection process involves identifying the type, quantity, and year installed for all pertinent compo-nents that make up a building. These components are organized into sys-tems and subsystems that follow the ASTM UNIFORMAT II classification hierarchy (Charette and Marshall 1999; Figure 1). When a specific instance of a component is recorded, it is called a Component-Section in BUILDER http://arc-solutions.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Charette-Marshall-1999-UNIFORMAT-II-Elemental-Classification....pdf

ERDC/CERL SR-18-7 5

and represents a single component assembly or collection of like compo-nents to be managed as a single unit. In this manual, the term “compo-nent” may be used interchangeably to mean a Component-Section. The BUILDER FCA process discussed in this manual directly supports compu-tation of a CI for building Component-Sections, known as the Component- Section Condition Index (CSCI), which is the fundamental metric used in BUILDER. The CSCI is aggregated to compute a CI metric at the Building Component type level (BCCI), System type level (SCI), Building level (BCI), and even above that to sites and organizational levels.

Figure 1. Condition index hierarchy.

A condition-based building repair strategy requires that condition infor-mation be collected at the component level, and that this condition infor-mation relates to accumulated degradation and eventual loss of component function. Every component of a building has a primary func-tion that it performs. This function is the reason that the component was constructed or installed in the building. It may also serve a number of sec-ondary or tertiary functions. For example, for a door component, the pri-mary function is to provide safe entry and egress of authorized movements while limiting unwanted movements of people (security), or other objects (water or moisture). The secondary functions would relate to aesthetics, and thermal and air control, among others.

ERDC/CERL SR-18-7 6

Over the course of a building component’s life in service, it will likely expe-rience a deterioration of its physical condition due to general aging, use in service, and exposure to a number of external or environmental factors.

This condition deterioration is manifested in distress(es) that adversely af-fect a component’s current and future ability to perform its primary and/or secondary functions. These distresses include cracks, leaks, holes, corrosion, overheating, excessive vibration, animal/insect damage, and general deterioration or damage. These distresses can be observed during a condition assessment process. As a result, the fundamental purpose of a condition assessment process is to measure (qualitatively and/or quantita-tively) a component’s ability to perform its required functions, considering the presence of accumulated distress(es).

There are effectively two types of condition assessment approaches availa-ble in BUILDER. The more detailed approach, the distress survey, in-volves the individual identification and recording of the type and nature of distresses observed for a component. The presence of the recorded dis-tresses, in addition to their severity and density, results in a CI metric that relates directly to the level of condition deterioration and indirectly to the loss of function due to this deterioration.

A less data-intensive approach (but not necessarily less in terms of obser-vation time), is the direct rating method, where a single qualitative rating is assigned to the component based on condition observations (taking all distresses into account). This rating also results in a CI metric that relates to the level of deterioration and the loss of function. This abbreviated di-rect rating approach is often better suited to initial baseline assessments where the components are inventoried and data is initially loaded into

BUILDER.

Both condition assessment methods discussed above require accurate and thorough physical observations during the assessment process. This some-times may require an invasive (but nondestructive) look at the internal subcomponents of a component, if it can be done safely. It also typically requires interviewing building occupants or maintainers to capture varia-tions in component performance (versus what can currently be observed during an inspection).

The procedures for conducting each assessment approach, as well as hy-brid assessment approaches, are discussed in more detail in later chapters

ERDC/CERL SR-18-7 7

of this manual. A general understanding of each of the assessment types is important for the Knowledge-Based inspection discussion in Section 2.3.

2.2 Constructing the Life-Cycle Profile of a Building Component

Since physical condition deterioration is a nearly universal phenomenon, practically all building components eventually reach a point where they re-quire extensive overhaul or replacement. The time from initial construc-tion or installation until a building component no longer serves its intended functions and needs to be replaced is referred to as the service life. BUILDER stores default expected service life values for a range of items in its component catalog. These values are a compilation derived from several sources, and serve as an initial gross estimate. In reality, the actual values can have a wide range due to the multitude of variables that affect how long something will last. One of the reasons for performing a condition assessment is to establish and calibrate the predicted CI vs. age curve, as illustrated in Figure 2. From this, the remaining maintenance life (RML) and the remaining service life (RSL) can be more accurately esti-mated. In BUILDER, the default service life value serves as an initial “seeding” of the prediction model and gives a reasonable estimate of life.

As condition data are added over time, the service life (and more im-portantly, the RSL) is automatically adjusted in BUILDER to give a better estimate of when a specific Component-Section is expected to fail and therefore must be replaced or rehabilitated.

The most efficient point in the life cycle to perform corrective action is rarely near or after the failure state has occurred. In this context, correc-tive action is used as a broad term that encompasses maintenance and/or repair work associated with reducing or eliminating the distresses (cracks, deterioration, damage, etc.) that are negatively affecting a Component- Section. As these distresses accumulate, the Component-Section ap-proaches what is referred to as the “sweet spot” for maintenance and re-pair (see Figure 2). The theoretical sweet spot is a narrow range of CSCI values that represent the economically optimum condition where mainte-nance/repair work should be performed. Performing maintenance work when the Component-Section’s condition is in this range minimizes the penalty costs incurred from deferring maintenance and results in life-cycle cost savings. In general, the theoretical sweet spot is a CSCI range of 70 to 80, based on the associated CI scale. The practicable sweet spot represents a user-defined condition standard for triggering work. The standard, which can be different for different Component-Sections, is a minimum-

ERDC/CERL SR-18-7 8

desired condition level. Variables corresponding to this include building use, building importance (represented by the Mission Dependency Index [MDI]), component importance, and other factors. (Note that in this con-text, maintenance is used as a broad term that encompasses all work asso-ciated with reducing or eliminating the distresses found in a Component- Section. It does not mean preventive maintenance.)

Figure 2. Component-section life-cycle condition curve.

When a component-section is replaced, the life-cycle curve essentially re-sets, using condition and service life information measured over the previ-ous component’s life cycle to predict future deterioration rates and life.

Performing maintenance and/or repair does not reset the life-cycle curve.

Instead, the CSCI experiences a step increase, and RSL is consequently ex-tended. The service life extension (measured in terms of years) is a func-tion of the extent of the work performed (as represented by CSCI gain) and the age of the component-section when the work was completed. In the-ory, maximum CSCI gain from repair is to a value of 100, but the post-work CSCI will be less than this maximum if not all of the distresses are eliminated, which is usually the case. A new maintenance life is also set.

Figure 3 displays these concepts.

ERDC/CERL SR-18-7 9

Figure 3. Component-section life-cycle condition curve after maintenance.

2.3 Knowledge-based inspection types

As discussed above, BUILDER offers different assessment types. The pro-cedures for performing each is described in detail in subsequent chapters of this manual. The purpose here is to address what they are and their sug-gested application. Sampling (discussed in detail in Section 2.9) is permit-ted for all of the approaches and even desired if the Component-Section is large, complex, and/or discontinuous.

Building Component-Section condition survey inspections encompass the following types:

• Distress surveys (with distress quantities or distress densities)

• Direct condition ratings

• Hybrid (distress survey of some subcomponents, direct rating of oth-ers)

• Paint ratings

2.3.1 Distress survey with distress quantities

The distress survey procedure with distress quantities is the most accurate and reproducible approach to inspections. The distress survey also pro-

ERDC/CERL SR-18-7 10

vides a record of the type of distresses present (e.g., Cracked), their sever-ity levels (e.g., High), and their quantity (e.g., 20 linear feet [LF]) for the Component-Section. It also provides for an accurate computation of den-sity. This survey type can be accomplished at any time as it provides the most complete picture of the Component-Section and thus, it provides in-formation of maximum value for a range of managerial decision support needs. However, this survey is also the most time consuming and expen-sive to accomplish.

2.3.2 Distress survey with density estimation

The distress survey procedure is similar to that with distress quantities ex-cept the quantities are not normally recorded. Since quantities are not rec-orded, density cannot be computed. Instead, the density (distress quantity divided by subcomponent amount) is estimated within a predefined range.

The utility value of the information is less than if the quantities were rec-orded, but the process is faster and more economical. However, the error rate is higher. Distress quantities may be collected for the basis of compu-ting density on those occasions when estimating is difficult or uncertain.

2.3.3 Direct condition ratings

The direct condition rating procedure is a less accurate but faster method for performing a condition survey. It involves visually inspecting each Component-Section, evaluating that item against a set of rating criteria, and selecting the appropriate rating. No information is collected regarding distresses.

2.3.4 Paint ratings

Paint ratings are used to evaluate painted surfaces. Based on the original work of Marshall (1994) from ERDC-CERL, the paint rating is similar to a direct rating. Normally, when sampling is applied to Component-Sections, sampling is applied to the paint (if painted) as well.

2.4 Pairing inspection types with inspection objectives

2.4.1 Knowledge-based inspection objectives

Several objectives result from performing condition surveys, including those listed below:

ERDC/CERL SR-18-7 11

• Determine quantitative condition of the Component-Section using the

CSCI.

• Determine the aggregate (rolled-up) CIs for the levels of building com-ponent (BCCI)—SCI, BCI, and higher.

• Provide a measurable condition history trend.

• Compute measurable condition deterioration rates.

• Calibrate life-cycle condition prediction model curve (refine the CSCI, shown in Figure 2).

• Compute (or recompute) the RML from condition model trends, based on the established sweet spot.

• Determine the broad scope of work for planning purposes, including a cost estimate for future maintenance or Component-Section replace-ment.

• Determine at what point replacement becomes a more viable option than repair.

• Compute (or re-compute) the RSL.

• Provide quality control for completed work (post-work assessment).

Every time a condition survey inspection is performed on a Component- Section, the CSCI will be computed for it. Additionally, all of the rolled-up CIs will be updated as well. The rate of deterioration, RSL, and RML are also re-computed. BUILDER always displays the CSCI as of the last in-spection, the estimated CSCI, and the remaining service and remaining paint lives (if painted) as of the current calendar day.

2.4.2 Suggested condition survey inspection type applications

Table 1 lists the condition survey inspection purpose or objective and the type of survey that can be conducted to meet that purpose. As can be seen, the distress survey with distress quantities satisfies all of the inspection purposes. However, sometimes using this type of survey constitutes an overuse of inspection resources. Inspection savings will result by matching the least costly survey type to satisfy the inspection need.

Table 1. Condition survey inspection matrix by objective.

No. Objective Distress with Quantities

Distress Direct

1. Determine condition of Component-Section (CSCI) Best Better Good

2. Determine rollup condition of system, building, etc. Best Better Good

3. Provide a condition history Best Better Good

4. Compute deterioration rates Best Better Limited

ERDC/CERL SR-18-7 12

No. Objective Distress with Quantities

Distress Direct

5. Calibrate CSCI prediction curves Best Better Limited

6. Compute/re-compute RML Best Better Limited

7. Determine broad scope of work for planning Good Limited Limited

8. Establish when cost effective to replace Better Good No

9. Compute/re-compute RSL Best Good Limited

10. Quality control (post-work assessment) Better Good No

Although different condition survey inspection approaches can be used for the same objective, there are various factors to be considered when select-ing the appropriate approach. The first factor relates to where on the life-cycle curve the Component-Section is estimated to reside at the time of in-spection. Figure 4 displays (in a general sense) the type of sustain-ment/restoration (i.e., work) needs, based on condition. Figure 5 matches a suggested condition survey inspection type to a condition in support of those work needs. For example, if the RML is believed to be years away, a direct rating may suffice. However, if the RML is believed to be a year or less, and it is desired to do the work to correct the deficiencies, the distress survey with quantities is needed.

Figure 4 General sustainment/restoration needs based on condition.

ERDC/CERL SR-18-7 13

Figure 5. Suggested condition survey inspection types for specific condition ranges (zones).

2.5 Condition zones

In general, each condition zone numbered in Figure 5 will have its own condition survey inspection requirements. These requirements are ad-dressed by zone number in the subsections below.

2.5.1 Zone 1 – Preventive Maintenance Sustainment zone

Zone 1 is the Preventive Maintenance (PM) Sustainment zone. However, although no work is planned for this zone (other than preventive mainte-nance and/or emergency service calls, if needed), condition surveys are needed to satisfy Objectives 1–6 (see Table 1). Direct ratings and paint rat-ings satisfy this requirement. (Note: computing the RSL is not of prime consideration here, since it will typically be well into the future.) Also, alt-hough future work requirements (Objective 7) are generated from these surveys, those requirements will occur most often past the normal plan-ning horizon.

Objective 10, quality control (post-work assessment), is also accomplished in this zone because of the increase in CSCI from the work performed. If the post-work assessment of the Component-Section reveals a “Defect Free” condition, either the distress survey or the direct rating approach

ERDC/CERL SR-18-7 14

may be used. If the intent was not to attain a Defect Free condition, the distress survey (with quantities or density estimation) should be done to document the remaining distresses. This survey should be done as soon as practicable after the work is completed. (Note: Unless overridden by a condition survey, BUILDER assumes a post-work CSCI of 95, unless the Component-Section is replaced; replacement gives a CSCI of 100.)

2.5.2 Zone 2 - Corrective Maintenance Approach zone

Zone 2 is the Corrective Maintenance (CM) Approach zone. Although no work (other than preventive maintenance and/or emergency/service calls, if needed) is usually planned for this zone, condition assessment surveys are needed to satisfy Objectives 1–7 (see Table 1). However, since the cor-rective maintenance sweet spot is being approached, a greater precision to the condition assessment is needed. Thus, the distress survey with density estimation is suggested.

The CSCI boundary between Zone 1 and Zone 2 is a function of the begin-ning of the zone containing the sweet spot (Zone 3, discussed next). That CSCI value, rate of deterioration, and the desired long-range work plan horizon (e.g., 5 years) are used to compute the boundary between Zone 1 and Zone 2. For example, if the sweet spot’s CSCI lower value is 70, the rate of deterioration is 2 points per year, and the long-range work plan horizon is 5 years (5-year plan), then the sweet spot approach zone begins at a CSCI of 80.

2.5.3 Zone 3 – Corrective Work zone

Zone 3 is termed the Corrective Work zone. Its top boundary is defined by the upper edge of the sweet spot. Meeting the objective of quantifying dis-tresses for work accomplishment (Objective 8) is most important. This quantification is needed to refine the scope of the work and to accurately estimate the cost in preparation of funding and work accomplishment.

This creates a job for the “job jar.” To do this, a distress survey type (not a direct survey) with distress quantities is recommended. Objectives 1–6 will also be met, but they are of secondary importance at this point. Sampling can be used for this, but if sampling is accomplished, 100% of the compo-nent-section should be assessed. Paint ratings, if the component is painted, will normally be accomplished at the same time. If it is deter-mined that not all of the Component-Section requires work, splitting the existing Component-Section into two or more parts should be considered.

ERDC/CERL SR-18-7 15

Figure 5 shows that Zone 3 extends beyond the sweet spot. Due to compet-ing priorities, budget constraints, and other factors, not all work will be ex-ecuted as planned, or the plan may require that some work be deferred.

With deferment comes continued degradation that must be documented through a distress survey with distress quantities. Also, continued degra-dation may progress to the point where replacement becomes the pre-ferred alternative. Objective 9 calls for that analysis and is met here. The key here is the timing of these surveys. Timing will be discussed below, un-der Section 2.6, “Knowledge-based inspection timing and frequency.”

The CSCI boundary between Zone 2 and Zone 3 (hitting the sweet spot) is set by the facility manager. It is based on two factors. One factor is eco-nomic criteria for minimizing the penalty cost that accrues from deferring work. The second is the condition standard level below which the Compo-nent-Section should not drop. Often the economic criterion is rolled into the process of setting the standard. Technically, the boundary should be the sweet spot minus 1 year to allow for quantification of scope and the ad-dition of the work to the job jar “just in time” for the next annual, well de-fined, and well-scoped work plan. This boundary is set in BUILDER, and it serves as the “trigger point” for executing work (or at least identifying the Component-Section candidates from which to prioritize work).

The sweet spot need not be the same for all buildings or building Compo-nent-Sections. Building importance (as measured by the MDI or other means) and component importance are criteria to use. The idea is that the most important or critical inventory will be maintained to a higher level than less important inventory.

2.5.4 Zone 4 – Missed Opportunity zone

Often the condition of a Component-Section will degrade well past the sweet spot before work on it is accomplished. In the Missed Opportunity zone, life remains for the Component-Section, but the degradation is such that replacement or major rehabilitation is now the best option from an economic perspective. The replacement or rehabilitation may be either sustainment or restoration, respectively depending on whether the degra-dation is more or less normal or is clearly premature. Once in this zone, the primary objective is to determine how much life remains (Objective 10). The direct rating satisfies this goal. Since replacement is warranted, there is no longer a need to document distresses. And since painting will

ERDC/CERL SR-18-7 16

be included in the replacement or rehabilitation (if the Component-Sec-tion is painted), there is no longer a need to do paint ratings. The esti-mated coating condition index (CCI) will be used in the condition index rollups, as that will provide sufficient accuracy. Objectives 1–5 and also Objective 7 are met.

2.5.5 Zone 5 – Dead zone

At this point, the Component-Section is past its service life. For all practi-cal purposes, it is dead, and immediate replacement or major restoration is the only viable option (assuming the Component-Section is still needed).

No further condition surveys are needed. The estimated CSCI value satis-fies Objectives 1–3. All other objectives either cannot be met, or they are meaningless with a CSCI so low. If the Component-Section is past its nor-mally expected service life, the work would be considered sustainment. If the “death” is premature, the work would be considered restoration.

2.5.6 Exceptions

The generalized discussions above apply to a great many Component-Sec-tions. However, there will be situations and/or Component-Sections that dictate a different condition survey inspection strategy. Five such situa-tions are described below. Other specific, situation-based possibilities may occur in practice.

2.5.6.1 Nonmaintainable

Occasionally, a Component-Section is not maintainable (other than appli-cable preventive maintenance). In these cases, it simply will be replaced when needed. This situation generally involves two cases. The first is a run-to-failure option with minimal disruption due to the failure. An exam-ple would be an inexpensive bathroom exhaust fan. This is a low-risk situ-ation. Condition surveys are not really needed in this situation. High risk situations, however, require that replacement be accomplished prior to failure because of the magnitude of the resulting disruption. An example would be a sump pump in a high water-table area. In this case, the sweet spot is set at a point in time that is prior to the end of service life. The number of years ahead is based on the tolerable risk. (The determination of service life is NOT an exact science.)

ERDC/CERL SR-18-7 17

2.5.6.2 Subcomponent accessibility

Distress surveys require the viewing and recording of distress data for each subcomponent of the parent Component-Section. Direct ratings, on the other hand, are focused on the entire Component-Section (or sample thereof). Unfortunately, sometimes not all of the subcomponents are read-ily visible during a routine condition survey. This situation is likely for cer-tain heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) components, especially when in operation. Thus even though a distress survey may be warranted, it may not be possible, necessitating a direct rating.

2.5.6.3 Catastrophic event

A catastrophic event, (such as storm damage, fire, etc.), will alter the life-cycle curve for a Component-Section. Often after a catastrophic event, some type of condition survey inspection will be required. The type of in-spection will depend of the nature and extent of the damage and the ur-gency for repair.

2.5.6.4 Rapid rate of deterioration or short service life

These exceptions are related in that Zone 1 and possibly Zone 2 may be skipped because the sweet spot is rapidly approaching.

2.5.6.5 Previous higher level of condition assessment

In some instances, a more detailed level of condition assessment may be warranted regardless of the assessment type guidelines shown in Figure 5.

If a more detailed assessment was previously performed on a Component- Section while its condition was still in the same zone, that same method will be recommended again for zones 1-3. For example, if the Component- Section is still in Zone 1 and the previous condition assessment method performed was a distress survey, the knowledge-based inspection (KBI) program would recommend a distress survey be performed instead of a di-rect rating.

2.6 Knowledge-based inspection timing and frequency

Thus far, discussion has focused on the type of condition survey inspection to perform. Nothing has been said about when or how often the inspec-tions should be accomplished. Traditionally, the frequency of condition survey inspections is set on some sort of a fixed schedule. The inspections

ERDC/CERL SR-18-7 18

may occur at intervals of 2 years, 3 years, or something else based on facil-ity importance, available funding, policy and doctrine, and other factors.

Unfortunately, some Component-Sections will be inspected too often, and others will not be inspected often enough.

2.6.1 Knowledge-based inspection scheduling concept

A knowledge-based condition survey inspection (KBCSI) framework and procedure (Uzarski and Grussing 2006, US Patent 7,058,544) abandons the fixed schedule approach in favor of a flexible one based on supporting the objectives described above. The KBCSI approach looks at the expected CSCIs of all of the Component-Sections and uses that information to com-pute values for RSL, RML, condition zone location, and rate of deteriora-tion and then uses those criteria plus others to recommend certain Component-Sections for condition survey inspection in a given year. Im-plementing flexibility requires an understanding of the criteria involved and setting the applicable values to the variables used in the criteria.

2.6.2 Scheduling criteria

The scheduling criteria are listed below, followed by explanations in sub-sections 2.6.2.1–2.6.2.10.

• Facility (building) importance

• Component-Section importance

• Service life

• Remaining service life

• Maintenance life

• Remaining maintenance life

• Rate of deterioration

• Condition zone

• Condition standards

• Maximum time frame between condition surveys

In the future, other criteria can be used to help schedule a condition sur-vey.